Religion and Intelligence

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Stealth

Join date: May '98
May 8, 2002
7,137
1,177
113
40
#1
I was going through Wikipedia today and I found a few things that were interesting to me:

Several studies have investigated the relationship between intelligence and the degree of religious belief (excluding humanism), with most showing that intelligence averages decrease significantly with the "importance of religion" an IQ testee rates as apt. But most studies chiefly show that people with religious beliefs have lower IQs and tend to be less educated.
What do you guys think of this?
 
Sep 29, 2003
6,584
54
0
#4
no offence to anybody here, but it seems from my experience, and people i have met, that religion is something for people who have nothing in their life (not many friends, not much money or material possessions, maybe a few deceased family members) and people who have been sheltered. its just something for people to look forward to. so if u think about it, religion brainwashes u, and i think weak, unintelligent people can easily be brainwashed....therefore, this makes sense to me....

edit..not sure if it has anything to do with anything, but im talking mostly about white people who are mostly christians, catholics...etc
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#5
^^^The following is relevant to what you said...


BHAGAVAD-GITA: As It Is
translation and purport by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada


Chapter 7. Knowledge of the Absolute


TEXT 16

catur-vidha bhajante mam
janah sukrtino 'rjuna
arto jijnasur artharthi
jnani ca bharatarsabha



SYNONYMS

catuh-vidhah--four kinds of; bhajante--render services; mam--unto Me; janah--persons; su-krtinah--those who are pious; arjuna--O Arjuna; artah--the distressed; jijnasuh--the inquisitive; artha-arthi--one who desires material gain; jnani--one who knows things as they are; ca--also; bharata-rsabha--O great one amongst the descendants of Bharata.


TRANSLATION

O best among the Bharatas [Arjuna], four kinds of pious men render devotional service unto Me--the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.


PURPORT

Unlike the miscreants, these are adherents of the regulative principles of the scriptures, and they are called sukrtinah, or those who obey the rules and regulations of scriptures, the moral and social laws, and are, more or less, devoted to the Supreme Lord. Out of these there are four classes of men--those who are sometimes distressed, those who are in need of money, those who are sometimes inquisitive, and those who are sometimes searching after knowledge of the Absolute Truth. These persons come to the Supreme Lord for devotional service under different conditions. These are not pure devotees because they have some aspiration to fulfill in exchange for devotional service. Pure devotional service is without aspiration and without desire for material profit. The Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu defines pure devotion thus:

anyabhilasita-sunyam jnana-karmady-anavrtam
anukulyena krsnanu-silanam bhaktir uttama



"One should render transcendental loving service to the Supreme Lord Krsna favorably and without desire for material profit or gain through fruitive activities or philosophical speculation. That is called pure devotional service."
When these four kinds of persons come to the Supreme Lord for devotional service and are completely purified by the association of a pure devotee, they also become pure devotees. As far as the miscreants are concerned, for them devotional service is very difficult because their lives are selfish, irregular and without spiritual goals. But even some of them, by chance, when they come in contact with a pure devotee, also become pure devotees.
Those who are always busy with fruitive activities come to the Lord in material distress and at that time associate with pure devotees and become, in their distress, devotees of the Lord. Those who are simply frustrated also come sometimes to associate with the pure devotees and become inquisitive to know about God. Similarly, when the dry philosophers are frustrated in every field of knowledge, they sometimes want to learn of God, and they come to the Supreme Lord to render devotional service and thus transcend knowledge of the impersonal Brahman and the localized Paramatma and come to the personal conception of Godhead by the grace of the Supreme Lord or His pure devotee. On the whole, when the distressed, the inquisitive, the seekers of knowledge, and those who are in need of money are free from all material desires, and when they fully understand that material remuneration has nothing to do with spiritual improvement, they become pure devotees. As long as such a purified stage is not attained, devotees in transcendental service to the Lord are tainted with fruitive activities, and they search after mundane knowledge, etc. So one has to transcend all this before one can come to the stage of pure devotional service.

(taken from www.asitis.com/7/16.html)
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#6
"if u think about it, religion brainwashes u, and i think weak, unintelligent people can easily be brainwashed"

To me this, only applies to those in Organized, Orthodox Religions. That's just my IMO, because alot of Christians who I have debated with always use these following terms or statements, Well My pastor said..., or my church said, or the Priest said, or my mom or someone said. But it's better to use direct scripture and THE PROPER interpration, instead of My Dad or Pastor Said.
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#7
^ how is that any different than saying "the Bible said...?" How do you know that your interpretation is the correct one or that any interpretation is correct? Anybody can quote someone or something else, but what do YOU say?
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#8
Then same applies to scientist right, when they say according to my research and this and that. I don't want to debate about it here, but let me ask those who will use science, even though science has been brought up in here, but how do they know if world is millions of years old, how do they know that the so called Comet Extinct Dinosaurs wasn't caused by a great flood, you know what I mean.
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#10
Stockton209SS said:
Then same applies to scientist right, when they say according to my research and this and that. I don't want to debate about it here, but let me ask those who will use science, even though science has been brought up in here, but how do they know if world is millions of years old, how do they know that the so called Comet Extinct Dinosaurs wasn't caused by a great flood, you know what I mean.
You are wrong. The same does not apply to science, because science is fact based, religion is not.
 

TROLL

Sicc OG
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
42
#11
heres a question...

is there a boundry scinece has yet to reach in its capacity of fact finding?

i believe that once u understand that question, u find that its possible that at some point science and religion blend together..

(I.e. the bible says we were created from dirt and science has proven we have minerals inside us specific to the earth itself)

however i believe that we are a product of the earth not merely a seperate inhabiting species
 
Apr 8, 2005
6,128
13
0
35
#12
XxtraMannish said:
You are wrong. The same does not apply to science, because science is fact based, religion is not.
well the bible is written by eye witnesses so it is arguable that the bible is fact as well, you just chose to believe what a scientist tells you he witnessed in his research rather than what an apostle or someone of that nature seen.
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#13
Im not saying that religion cant be true. All I'm saying is that religion can not prove things to be true, science can. Religion says "Belive this because I say so," whereas science says "Here is the proof that what I say is true."
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#14
thatguy said:
well the bible is written by eye witnesses so it is arguable that the bible is fact as well, you just chose to believe what a scientist tells you he witnessed in his research rather than what an apostle or someone of that nature seen.
nobody knows who wrote the bible
 

TROLL

Sicc OG
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
42
#18
XxtraMannish said:
^I can write a book and say that I witnessed the three little pigs perform the first open heart surgery and that the rings around saturn are made of skittles.
^^
ok.. but u said "no one kno's who wrote the bible", and i said "it was most definately a man tho"...

no mention of the substance of whats written in the book
 
Jun 27, 2005
5,207
0
0
#19
TROLL said:
^^
ok.. but u said "no one kno's who wrote the bible", and i said "it was most definately a man tho"...

no mention of the substance of whats written in the book
I should have been more clear in what I was trying to say. You said that the Bible was constructed from eyewitness accounts. My point is that anybody can write that they witnessed anything they can fathom but that doesnt make it fact.